Speaking with Eurogamer, Blizzard's Rob Pardo has chimed in on the controversy over Valve's DOTA trademark and just-announcedDOTA 2 project, saying trying to lock down what had been the title of a Warcraft III modification "doesn't seem the right thing to do." This comes after Blizzard showed off a custom DOTA-themed StarCraft II map at BlizzCon, as Pardo says: "Our response is that they don't own the term DOTA at this point. It's something that they're filing for." Of the TM filing, Blizzard feels "a little bit of confusion, to be honest. Certainly, DOTA came out of the Blizzard community... It just seems a really strange move to us that Valve would go off and try to exclusively trademark the term considering it's something that's been freely available to us and everyone in the Warcraft III community up to this point," says Pardo. "Valve is usually so pro mod community. It's such a community company that it just seems like a really strange move to us... I really don't understand why [they would do it], to be honest."

Yifes wrote on Oct 25, 2010, 23:58:The fact is that SC2 has the most quality, content, and replayability of any PC game released since the Orange Box. But Yeah, keep on feeding yourself whatever bullshit you need to maintain your biases and your illusion of superiority.

Thatís right nin, I did. I stood by my morals and didnít let all the hype of this game or Blizzard make go out and impulse buy their mediocre craptastic game. Maybe you donít have any morals and where one of the people who was lead blindly into buying SC2.

Maybe if more people stood by their morals instead of being impulsive about buying a game that was all hype, CGI and no bark developers like Blizzard would get the point. And dont fool yourselves into thinking that blizzard made this game for americans, because they didnt.

The fact is that SC2 has the most quality, content, and replayability of any PC game released since the Orange Box. But Yeah, keep on feeding yourself whatever bullshit you need to maintain your biases and your illusion of superiority. The easiest way to hate something is to know nothing about it.

Warskull wrote on Oct 25, 2010, 23:07:The original creator of DotA is long gone. That would be Eul, Guinsoo stole an unprotected copy of the map and released his own version that happened to catch on (I don't believe he credited the original creator either.) Icefrog, who now work for Valve, took over and did a great deal to fix the balance and coding of the map.

Most WC3 maps have a history of changing hands (often without consent) and people taking credit for other people's work.

Guinsoo didn't "steal" anything. Guinsoo made DOTA-Allstars, which like many DOTA variants, was based off of Eul's original DOTA (which itself was based off of Aeon of Strife). Guinsoo's version took off because he created the formula of modern DOTA (like 5 heroes per team, item recipes, etc) Icefrog took over DOTA-Allstars from Guinsoo after version 6, and later renamed DOTA-Allstars to just Dota. Sure Icefrog added a lot of content and polish to the game, but his role is arguably much less important in the creation of the MOBA gametype.

heroin wrote on Oct 25, 2010, 14:40:So, how do we know that Valve has not begun to employ the original creators of DOTA? If they have, then what is the big fuss about? Did Valve ever create the engine that the original Team Fortress came out of (Quake)? Hell no, they didn't. But, as far as I know they did hire a bunch of guys who created the mod and did a very good job bringing it into it's own.

I think Blizz just needs to STFU on this one (I love you guys but jesus, Mo Money the Mo problems you make up in your big convoluted heads).

The original creator of DotA is long gone. That would be Eul, Guinsoo stole an unprotected copy of the map and released his own version that happened to catch on (I don't believe he credited the original creator either.) Icefrog, who now work for Valve, took over and did a great deal to fix the balance and coding of the map.

Most WC3 maps have a history of changing hands (often without consent) and people taking credit for other people's work.

Valve is a private company. Which means a tendency to the exact opposite of Activision-Blizzard in risk and long term vision.

That's odd because both companies look virtually the same to me on both counts. What are these major risks that Valve is constantly funding? What are these new visions they constantly have that Blizzard does not? Creating Steam for the benefit of the end-user? We're still waiting to see that.

Valve is a private company. Which means a tendency to the exact opposite of Activision-Blizzard in risk and long term vision.

That's odd because both companies look virtually the same to me on both counts. What are these major risks that Valve is constantly funding? What are these new visions they constantly have that Blizzard does not? Creating Steam for the benefit of the end-user? We're still waiting to see that.

"There are two kinds of people in this world; people who love delis, and people you shouldnít associate with.Ē - Damon Runyan

Golwar wrote on Oct 25, 2010, 19:15:Odd. Rob Pardo just commented that it seems strange to trademark a mod from one community that is completly unrelated to Valve, so why all the hate for Blizz? Yep, SC2 has its mistakes - so what?

The topic is if it is okay to grab a legendary name, while the only legimitation Valve offers is that they hired the very last one who was in charge of the project.Valve can hire whomever they want, they can jump on the train to any successful upcoming genre, no problem. They can even hire the complete initial team that created a mod right from the beginning and THAN trademark the mod's name. But DOTA? I simply find no excuse. And that the people from Blizzard ain't Saints is also no excuse.

Odd. Rob Pardo just commented that it seems strange to trademark a mod from one community that is completly unrelated to Valve, so why all the hate for Blizz? Yep, SC2 has its mistakes - so what?

The topic is if it is okay to grab a legendary name, while the only legimitation Valve offers is that they hired the very last one who was in charge of the project.Valve can hire whomever they want, they can jump on the train to any successful upcoming genre, no problem. They can even hire the complete initial team that created a mod right from the beginning and THAN trademark the mod's name. But DOTA? I simply find no excuse. And that the people from Blizzard ain't Saints is also no excuse.

Rattlehead wrote on Oct 25, 2010, 14:49:Yea a developer trying to make more money, who would of thought right? Jeez what fucking planet do you live on? Like all companies, profit is number 1 in mind. Do you even know what greed means?

Stop acting like they owe you.

That's patently false. And we're talking about companies that at one time really were for the community. There just seems to be some tipping point here related to age and size where that very sadly goes by the wayside and then it really does become solely about profit and that's when they start to fail.

Activision-Blizzard is a publicly traded company. Their primary obligation is to their shareholders. That tends to emphasize short term profits over long term vision. They also tend to be more risk averse.

Valve is a private company. Which means a tendency to the exact opposite of Activision-Blizzard in risk and long term vision.

"It just seems a really strange move to us that Valve would go off and try to exclusively trademark the term considering it's something that's been freely available to us and everyone in the Warcraft III community up to this point," says Pardo. "Valve is usually so pro mod community. It's such a community company that it just seems like a really strange move to us... I really don't understand why [they would do it], to be honest."

I agree with his sentiment just not with how he reached it. Valve is pro mod community and this does currently seem like a strange move now that there is all this controversy regarding the single modder they picked up. But Valve did the same thing with the Team Fortress name and mod team, I think they had that in mind when deciding to copyright DOTA but it's all this additional crap about IceFrog that muddies it all up.

Rattlehead wrote on Oct 25, 2010, 14:49:Yea a developer trying to make more money, who would of thought right? Jeez what fucking planet do you live on? Like all companies, profit is number 1 in mind. Do you even know what greed means?

Stop acting like they owe you.

That's patently false. And we're talking about companies that at one time really were for the community. There just seems to be some tipping point here related to age and size where that very sadly goes by the wayside and then it really does become solely about profit and that's when they start to fail.

"There are two kinds of people in this world; people who love delis, and people you shouldnít associate with.Ē - Damon Runyan

"And dont fool yourselves into thinking that blizzard made this game for americans, because they didnt."

So, what exactly are you trying to say with this statement? Do you think anyone creates games just for Americans enjoy? Do you think anyone creates anything just for Americans to enjoy? Well, with the exception of god awful shit like Glenn Beck and FOX News?. Maybe, you should take your high moral standards to Afghanistan. That way you can play Call of Duty but it'd be real! That'd be awesome, right?

I said it a long time ago, but jsut about everyone jumped on the Shitcraft bandwagon and bought the game. Not me!!

YEAH! YOU SHOWED EM!!!!

Thatís right nin, I did. I stood by my morals and didnít let all the hype of this game or Blizzard make go out and impulse buy their mediocre craptastic game. Maybe you donít have any morals and where one of the people who was lead blindly into buying SC2.

Maybe if more people stood by their morals instead of being impulsive about buying a game that was all hype, CGI and no bark developers like Blizzard would get the point. And dont fool yourselves into thinking that blizzard made this game for americans, because they didnt.

And I don't mean to disrespect any of the developers, I love Blizzard and definitely think Valve releases products with the same sort of level of polish; but I'm definitely with Valve on this one.

But, the topic that is interesting to me is why does Blizzard seem to shun mod developers from their hiring practices? It would be interesting to find out what the actual creative hierarchy is at Blizzard. Do they just have a few creative geniuses and then a lot of production robots? Hence' they'd rather not hire some innovative "pre-madonna" from ruining their solid bread & butter styling of mechanics.

Why is it that Valve innovatively seeks out out-of-school (Portal), mod community (TF2) developers and hire them? Because Valve refuses to stagnate on just having a couple of IPs?

I wonder what each companies core values really are? It seems like Valve wants to innovate. And maybe, possibly, Blizzard has it's mechanical systems so ingrained and calculated that it can only innovate on it's core-mechanics (great gameplay balance); which seems if this is Blizzard's intention there is a possibility of stagnation - though I must say their games are always a lot of fun and have a lot of re-playability. Maybe, people who create and innovate on Blizzard products aren't taken seriously at Blizzard because they already have their creative minds ; they couldn't stand to take on some new guns/blood? And at this point with 14 billion in shareholder stakes I bet what I'm saying it true. Blizzard is locked down to re-hash their games over and over again.